German Official: No German Soldiers in Iraq Even if Kerry Wins

"We are, within the framework of our possibilities, prepared to become involved in the stabilization of the situation in Iraq, for example through the mentioned training of police and soldiers outside of Iraq or through the civil rebuilding in Iraq. But not just President Bush, but also presidential candidate Kerry knows that the position of the German government not to send any troops to Iraq is not dependent upon who will be elected in the American elections." (emphasis ours)

It is becoming more and more clear with each passing day that Germany and France will not send troops to Iraq even if John Kerry should win the election. So the big question remains: If elected, which allies will a President Kerry convince to join the US in Iraq after calling the war a "mistake" fought at the wrong place and the wrong time? Mr. Kerry's promises to build a broader coalition and attract more international allies to Iraq seem awfully hollow. Perhaps Burkina Faso can still be convinced...

Voigt: Bush has Himself to Blame for Germans' Negative Perceptions

Mr. Voigt's reaction to the following question was also interesting:

"Question: Most Germans want Kerry to be the next US President. Despite that, wouldn't it be simpler for the position of the German government if Bush were re-elected?

Answer: I believe that here there is a difference between the populace and the experts in the government, who not only know that we have to work together with the American president, no matter what his name is. The experts also know that there are moderate differences between the candidates, but no principal differences in the foreign and security policy. That is something that is not perceived by the German people in the same manner, because there naturally the rhetoric of Bush that is aimed at a particular political clientele and political milieu is not exactly something that in the same way garners great favor. I believe that the differences in the policy, that do indeed exist, are not as dramatic as they are, in part, perceived by the general population." (emphasis ours)

So according to Voigt, the main reason that most Germans can't see how similar Bush and Kerry really are is because of "Bush's rhetoric." In other words, it is Bush's own fault that people in Germany dislike him in overwhelming numbers. "Selberschuld" Mr. President.

But is that really what is behind Germans' disdain for Bush? Is Mr. Voigt giving us the complete picture?

Hmmmm...I wonder if Mr. Voigt thinks any of this objective German media coverage has influenced Germans' perceptions of Bush:

Could this sort of media coverage possibly have influenced Germans Mr. Voigt?

One thing is clear: It is certainly much easier from a political point of view for Mr. Voigt to place all the blame on Bush and his "rhetoric." Bush has become a favorite scapegoat for nearly everything of late. Now he is even being blamed for job losses in Germany. After all, why should the German media blame the Socialist-Green government's failing economic policy when they can point the finger at the evil American cowboy? It certainly sells more magazines and numbs the pain.

But can we really blame poor Mr. Voigt? It really wouldn't make much sense for a member of the Socialist Schroeder administration to criticize such strong natural allies in the German media. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

Comments

Maybe Kerry's secret plan if he wins the presidency is to campaign for regime change in Germany to oust the Socialist-Green government? I'm kidding of course, (see here is a smiley! ;) ) but there has to be a magnitude of higher likelihood that a CD led government would be more favorable to offering of German military assistance in Iraq (whatever the role)?

He refers to the differences in style and language of the two candidates. And my opinion is that he is right: When I, as a European, visited the US, I felt a lot more at home in, say, Boston than I did in the south. Also you have to admit that Bush does not talk like the common European politician. He uses simpler, less diplomatic language (compare that to a debate in the British House of Commons). Surely not many French people expect the Americans to like President Chirac because his language is so refined. Mr Voigt goes on to state that the German government ‘has to work together with every elected American President and is able to work with every elected American president.’ Why? Because ‘the similarities in values and interests are sufficiently great.’ Why did you not report and praise Voigt for those comments?

I know that it is easy to pick out whichever quotes from interviews you like and criticise them. You do of course post the links to articles but I doubt that every reader of your blog speaks German.

Why should Germany squander blood and treasure for something the US has botched beyond repair? Here's another major f**ck-up reported on the front page of this morning's New York Times:

"The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations."

"The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations."

right mike,but read again -->>Iraqi interim government<<--- not one did it earlier not even th un-security council and it happened at the same time when coalition forces still battles agains Saddam.

But now the questions comes up:

"How one man or one organisation can say now theire are no wmd's in iraq while in same time we take notice of missing of 380 tons of conventional explosives ?"

Of course that will be the case. Bush and Kerry are campaigning - they are talking to the American voter.
Also, there is nothing deep or direct in an American's reading of the statement of any European polititian, with possible exception of the British.
As far as I'm concerned the communication problem is something that simply comes with the territory, and goes both ways. We have a civil form of discussion here which is direct, but doesn't have the brutal ardency that one find's in Europe. There is no constant invention of perceived 'pressure on the leaders' or never ending political 'palace coups' that one has between political parties in the EU.
All this says is that it is compatable with the respective public tempraments of Americans for the American form, and Europeans for the European form.
As a gentle reminder, simply being European does not make something work better or be more just.

Even with all of the 'love your country' hype that we have here in the US, we know. We are always looking beyond our shores for ideas. The press in Europe would not tell you this because ti is of no consequence to their viewers and readers.

When I, as a European, visited the US, I felt a lot more at home in, say, Boston than I did in the south.

I know Germans who have lived in the south and who felt perfectly at home there. I met a lady working at the Standesamt in Nurnberg who lived in Mississippi for 15 years and loved it. I also know Germans who prefer the south to New England. Trying to say one part of America has "more in common" with Europe (or Germany) than another is just an attempt to divide and stereotype those regions. This shows Mr. Voigt doesn't know what he's talking about. Mr. Voigt is essentially trying to say that Bush is a stupid cowboy from Texas and Kerry is a nuanced man of the world from Boston in a very diplomatic and masked sort of way as not to piss off too many Americans should Bush win re-election.

Mr Voigt goes on to state that the German government ‘has to work together with every elected American President and is able to work with every elected American president.’ Why? Because ‘the similarities in values and interests are sufficiently great.’ Why did you not report and praise Voigt for those comments?

That is a statement of the obvious, why should I praise him for that? If he wasn't able to work with an American President, that would be a problem.

Also you have to admit that Bush does not talk like the common European politician. He uses simpler, less diplomatic language

How would you really know? How often does the German media broadcast Mr. Bush's speeches live and in full or even post a transcript? How often do they conduct interviews with pro-Bush folks as opposed to anti-Bush folks? The answer is not very often. I would say rarely.

The fact is that you often have what Mr. Bush says interpreted to you in a very selective way by the German media. And many of them want Bush to come across as a crude cowboy. That is why we try to post transcripts (of speeches and debates) here on Medienkritik as often as possible. We want our visitors to decide for themselves and not have it all interpreted and spun by the German media.

@Ray
I agree.. To be honest, Bush is not the greatest orator, but some of his speeches have been barn burners.. (very good I mean)
His speech before the Bundestag or his speech before the United Nations.. brilliant.
I have voted Democrat all my life, but I have voted for Bush..
No one really listens to what he has to say. He is stereotyped and nobody wants to be bothered with deeper analysis (black and white thinking anyone? Oh I forgot, only Bush and the Amis do THAT!)
and even if Bush DOES use 'simpler, less diplomatic' language.. he says what he means, and means what he says.. a rarity in a politician.
Man, Kanzler Schroeder.. the 'MEDIA KANZLER' ...
is so slippery.. like an eel

Ray D:
"How would you really know? How often does the German media broadcast Mr. Bush's speeches live and in full or even post a transcript? How often do they conduct interviews with pro-Bush folks as opposed to anti-Bush folks? The answer is not very often. I would say rarely."

You are certainly right that the German media is biased against Bush. However I live in England and inform myself extensively on the net and in the papers. And still I believe that Bush has a different style of speeking than Kerry which is often a weakness for JFK since he makes things to complicated and misses the tone frequently.
The fact is that there ARE cultural differences between the US and Europe, including the style of political debates (I don't want to judge as to what style is superior). The Germans and the German media are not used to that style and are therefore a little bewildered (as I'm sure that Americans are often bewildered by political debates in Europe).

My first post however made the point that you don't treat Mr Voigt in a fair way. In his interview he is very diplomatic and he defends the US (read his SPON-interview as well). This guy is in charge of German-American coordination and the last thing he has in mind is to offend Americans including GWB.

Also you have to admit that Bush does not talk like the common European politician. He uses simpler, less diplomatic language...

You know, I keep reading about this nuanced, sophisticated, diplomatic language of the Europeans, but I hear stuff from them that no American politician, and no American president, would get away with saying. I think you missed a good opportunity to keep quiet there, just as Hitler often did.

being a german, I can asure the american guys here that the preference of german media and the so called intellectual milieu for new england and their arrogant behavior towards the south of the US compares perfectly to their perception of their very own country, germany. And for to put it in a broader perspective: here is a war going on - a war on any person/institution that dares to be religious on the one hand and capable, clear thinking and reality-linked on the other... The US herefore serves more as an abstract surrogat. So dont take it personal - most of these folks dont know nothing about america and the idea of a pluralistic society, based on real tolerance and the coexistence of divers philosophies and religions is just a word for them, a word they dare to use while theres just abuse.

... you should remark, that there is iconsistent swinging between: "it was a joke", "the campaing was designed to influence voters, it was a success that wasnt stopped until last weekend", "aim was to influence", "was meant ironically", "jounalist wanted to give non-americans a chance to participate on the election"

the whole thing would have been a joke, if one tells the story at a 'stammtisch', if it comes to a big newspaper, its nothing but a bad excuse.

"The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations."

I love this "380 tons" story. If any intelligent European actually still believes the US media is in "lock step with the Bush Administration," as claimed by SPIEGEL, here's another wake-up call for you. When I listened to CBS news on my car radio on the way to work this morning, this was the lead story, and I thought I was listening to a Kerry campaign commercial. The Bush campaign had "no comment," senior Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart was quoted with the usual Democrat talking point about the "incompetence" of the Administration, etc., etc. Check it out with Google, and you'll notice that all the other major US news services are headlining this story, replete with dark hints about how this very kind of explosive can be used to trigger atom bombs (Oh my God!!) Turns out they couldn't restrain themselves from observing that Paul Bremer knew about the missing explosives months ago, but tried to "cover it up." Translation: Paul Bremer knew about it months ago, the IAEA knew about it months ago, the Iraqi government knew about it months ago, and that means, (duhhh!) every competent reporter not in a coma knew about it months ago, but (wonder of wonders!) chose not to say anything about it until a week before the election! October surprise!! Add to that the fact that, conservatively, half a million tons of conventional munitions were floating around in Iraq following the US invasion, most of which contained explosives quite as capable of "setting off an atomic bomb" as the HMX, RDX, and PETN in the now famous 380 tons, and it's clear that this is another one of the media's tempests in a teapot.

The German army is not capable of serving in Iraq. It lacks the training, the equipment, and the experience to get involved in a real combat situation. The German army has not won a war in over 130 years.

On top of this, the German government does not have the money to send troops to Iraq. Germany is likely to violate the EU's stability and growth pact yet again next year.

So Mr. Voigt's statements are quite understandable. They are not based on anti-American sentiments.

It is also true that there are no major differences between George Bush's and JFK's foreign policy. Neither candidate will withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq anytime soon. Both candidates will fight the war on terror. I used to buy George Bush's claim that he has always been a leader in the fight against terror. Then I read Against all Enemies, by Richard Clarke. The facts in this book make a mockery of George Bush's claim, and I'm just talking about the undisputable facts, not about Clarke's rhetoric against Bush. If you disagree with this statement you haven't read the book. Read it! It's none of this Michael Moore bullshit. This Clarke guy has worked with every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan and he knows his shit.

Challenge to readers:

George W. Bush has missed not a single opportunity to antagonize America's European allies. I challenge you to name a single issue on which he has not pissed off a number of European countries, and I even allow you to exclude France and Germany!

(Remember steel tariffs, the International Court of Justice, the Kyoto protocol, the ABM treaty, the Iraq war, etc.)

Would you consider the fact that Bush went to the UN on Iraq an attempt to "antagonize America's European allies"? Was his creation of a coalition in Iraq with dozens of nations including the UK, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, etc. "antagonizing Euro allies?" Is the wide international cooperation in Afghanistan under the lead of the US and NATO representative of "antagonizing Euro allies?"

And of course when Mr. Kerry called our friends in Iraq the coalition of the "bribed and coerced" that was simply more nuanced diplomacy aimed at strengthening our alliances...when Schroeder exploited Iraq war fears to win re-election that was also nuanced Euro diplomacy aimed at strengthening transatlantic ties...riiiight...

And would a President Kerry join the Kyoto Protocol or the International Criminal Court? The answer is a clear "NO."

I think Mr. Voigt was right that there isn't a large fundamental difference between Bush and Kerry...unless you are blinded by hate that is...

Let me get this straight. The UN was monitoring these explosives and told the coalition where they were. The US military did NOTHING to secure this (instead they secured the ministry of oil building) and now these explosives are being used to blow up US troops. Oh, and if everyone knew about this and didn't report it, why is the Bush Campaign saying today they only learned about the missing stockpile 10 DAYS AGO! The incompetence is mind-boggling.

The fact is that the US has already secured and destroyed thousands of times more explosives than the ones reported missing in Iraq. Let's get a little perspective here. And could it be that Saddam Hussein or his people moved the explosives or buried them during the course of the war? And why is it that this story (which is months and months old) is suddenly making headlines a week before the election? Just a coincidence?

Oh yeah, I thought Iraq didn't have any weapons...these explosives were for possible use with nuclear bombs...how's that?

@Challenger,
"I used to buy George Bush's claim that he has always been a leader in the fight against terror. Then I read Against all Enemies, by Richard Clarke. The facts in this book make a mockery of George Bush's claim, and I'm just talking about the undisputable facts, not about Clarke's rhetoric against Bush. If you disagree with this statement you haven't read the book. Read it!"
For me this is not the first time seeing someone recommending to read a whole book because of the undisputable facts to be found in that book. A few months ago someone recommended to me "The Bubble of American Supremacy" by George Soros, because of the numerous undisputable facts to be found in that book. After a cursory glance I had to conclude that those undisputable facts after all were not so very undisputable. Now, of course I'm always interested in undisputable facts, and I'am prepared to change my opinion in the light of facts hitherto unknown to me. The problem is, I havn't got the time to read so many books, especially when there are other books seemingly more attractive to me. So it would be nice if you would be so kind to cite just some facts which are absolutely undisputable and which according to you cast doubt on the credibility of Bush'leadership.

“George W. Bush has missed not a single opportunity to antagonize America's European allies. I challenge you to name a single issue on which he has not pissed off a number of European countries, and I even allow you to exclude France and Germany!(Remember steel tariffs, the International Court of Justice, the Kyoto protocol, the ABM treaty, the Iraq war, etc.)”

You know, Challenger, I don’t like George W. Bush. I will be very disappointed if he is elected. However, I will be even more disappointed if Kerry is elected, and one of the main reasons is because his supporters are people like you, who swallow leftist propaganda bromides, make no serious attempt to inform themselves on the issues, and then come up with comments like the above. Let’s take Kyoto. Is it asking too much of you to ask that you make a minimal effort to inform yourself about the reasons the US rejected it? You don’t have to listen to Bush, Cheney, or Karl Rove. Allow me to suggest the “New Republic,” a leftist magazine whose editors despise Bush and endorsed Kerry in their latest issue. Go to their website, search around for articles on Kyoto, and learn something for a change. There were very good reasons for the US to reject Kyoto that had nothing whatsoever to do with “pissing off the Europeans.” It was hardly torpedoed by Bush, but was, in fact, rejected by the Senate during the Clinton Administration by something like 95-0.

The problem with Kyoto was that the Europeans wanted us to make major sacrifices, while they made none whatsoever. Is there something wrong about asking that the impact of Kyoto be fairly distributed among the developed countries? In fact, Kyoto would have been grotesquely unfair, because the Europeans had already virtually “achieved” their Kyoto goals. This had nothing to do with any virtuous and bold steps they took to reduce greenhouse emissions during the 1990’s but, for the most part, to three “windfalls” for which they deserve no credit whatsoever. In the first place, the U.S. economy and population grew much faster than those of Europe during the 90’s. Secondly, thanks to the presence of large new natural gas resources in the North Sea and elsewhere, the Europeans were able to rely much more heavily on gas-fired power plants, which only produce about half the CO2 emissions of coal-fired plants. The U.S. had no windfall sources of cheap natural gas to replace coal. Finally, the Europeans, and especially Germany, were able to shut down heavily polluting Communist era factories. The rationale for doing this had nothing to do with reducing greenhouse emissions. The factories were simply losing vast amounts of money. If idealism and commitment to the environment had anything to do with it, then the rest of Europe should be ashamed. Russia achieved a whopping 30% reduction in its greenhouse emissions using a similar method, and that at a time of severe economic dislocation! Ukraine’s reduction was closer to 40%, at a time when they were an economic basket case even compared to Russia. What heroism!! Have the Europeans reacted rationally to all this, adjusting Kyoto emissions targets to bring at least a semblance of parity to the level of economic sacrifice demanded of all parties to the agreement? Hardly! I suspect it’s particularly unlikely in Germany, where, to the best of my knowledge, the mass media hasn’t even mentioned salient facts like this, though they are absolutely essential to any rationale debate on the matter.

It’s quite true that Clinton was committed to achieving a workable Kyoto agreement. The fact that he didn’t has a lot more to do with European duplicity than U.S. attempts to “piss off” the Europeans. When Clinton negotiators tried to save Kyoto and assure it some chance of ratification in the U.S. by asking for sensible provisions for carbon trading, European negotiators stonewalled and refused to budge. In the Bonn negotiations towards the end of the Clinton Administration, as at all previous Kyoto talks, European negotiators, including those of France, Germany, and the Netherlands, have been ministers of the environment, people like Germany's Trittin, who love to play to the crowds, but have little or no role in national decision making. The U.S., on the contrary, has always had high level representation. At Bonn for example, it was Paula Dobriansky, whose connections ran directly to the White House. In the early days of the Bush Administration when his attitude towards Kyoto had not yet hardened, clowns like Trittin insulted and villified him, setting up a President just beginning his administration for all the usual cheap shots of his domestic opponents about his stupidity, lack of leadership, inability to conduct foreign affairs, etc. etc. etc. One wonders what more they could have done to insure the U.S. would never ratify the agreement. And that's precisely what they wanted. Now they can cry big crocodile tears and tell us that, despite their deep commitment to saving the world from global warming, all their heroic efforts have been stymied by the evil U.S. When you add to this the fact that no major European country has implemented any significant active measures whatsoever to slow greenhouse emissions, it's obvious to everyone but a few duped Europeans what's going on.

If serious steps to reduce CO2 emissions won’t harm economies, and, in particular, if they won’t cost jobs, you need to take your message to Chancellor Schröder, not George Bush. He was so terrified that the serious steps he was demanding of the U.S. to reduce emissions would cost jobs if applied in Germany that he cynically demanded, in effect, that only the U.S. sacrifice to achieve the Kyoto targets, virtually assuring that the U.S. Senate would never ratify the agreement.

If you really think Germany or any other European country will take bold measures to reduce greenhouse gases thanks to Kyoto, get ready for some major disappointments in the next ten years. Reductions in European greenhouse emissions beyond what you'd expect from lame economies and increased use of cheap natural gas will be paltry indeed, barring some deus ex machina in the form of a brilliant discovery that allows them to do it without impacting domestic industries. Meanwhile, the two-faced, self-righteous posturing of the pious European “environmentalists” has so galvanized the right in this country against any meaningful steps to limit greenhouse emissions that chances of serious action here are slim indeed. That’s to be expected, because for the European “environmentalists,” the virtuous pose is everything, and real accomplishments are nothing.

In a word, Challenger, if failing to bend over and spread our cheeks for the Europeans on Kyoto, or any other issue, is, by definition, “pissing them off,” I am all in favor of pissing them off.

How do you know this all? probably the german military is as well trained as any western military forces........do you have some other insider informations that shows the opposite? I mean nobody in germany is very impressed about american soldiers acting in iraq. I really do not see they are "elite-forces"......If I only look at the numbers of how many helicopters crashed without any influence of the "insurgents" then maybe you should take some lessons in helicopter-pilot-training from the britons or italians. ha

... probably the german military is as well trained as any western military forces ...

Are you high?

The U.S. spends more on defense than all Western European contries combined. The U.S. has a long history of running successful military campaigns. They are well equipped and well trained, their army consists of professionals. By contrast, the German military consists of draftees who have mostly no interest in serving in the military in the first place. The U.S., Britain, and France have nuclear weapons, Germany has none. There is absolutely no way in hell that the German Bundeswehr can in any way match the U.S. military.

Dude, If you are out of arguments just admit it. I've never seen that many rowbacks in one comments section before in my life.

It's not our fault that you make a weak challenge, get blown away, and then whine about it. And if you don't like it, why don't you go start a blog of your own that gets 100,000+ visitors a month. Then you can come back and talk to me about how deluded I am "dude".

@Challenger: Ah, Richard Clarke turned himself into another partisan hack. His book, his charges against Bush, his legacy have been debunked. Even Kerry took Clarke off his list foreign policy advisors. Clarke sold his soul, was used up and tossed away by the Democrats like used toilet paper. I am not exaggerating.

In August of 2001, Clarke was the background source for a group of reporters. He listed all the many actions the Bush Administration was taking against terrorism and how they were ramping up the effort compared to the Clinton Administration. Then in his book, he says the Clinton Administration fought an active war on terror, while the Bushies did nothing. Clarke is considered a crank today.

@VIK: There's a thread that runs through John Kerry's life from his days in prep school, to college at Yale, to his anti-American activities during the Vietnam War, to his years in the Senate especially under Reagan and Bush and his current Presidential campaign. That theme is that the USA is incompetent, cannot be successful and almost always shouldn't ever try. John Kerry said it was worth American lives to fight in an operation under UN control, while it was doomed to failure and not worth American lives if the USA conducted the exact same operation.

This view is shared by about 15% of the American population who are self-hating Americans. I simply cannot believe Americans will vote for a man, who believes this.

@Challenger
"Richard Clarke is not some Michael Moore bullshitter, or some political activist writing another stupid anti-Bush book."
I didn't make the comparison with Michael Moore. By way of example, I mentioned a book by George Soros. But if Soros is to be considered some Michael Moore bullshitter, I will not protest.
"The problem is, summarizing a 300 page book containing an in-depth account of the U.S. fight against international terrorism since the Reagan White House in 5 sentences is not going to help anyone."
A summary of an in-depht account was not what I was asking for. I was interested in some undisputable facts. Just some. To see how undisputable they really were. But probably you think this wouldn't help me because I will not be able to see how undisputable the facts are without reading the complete in-depth account?
"If you can't be bothered to read a book written by an insider, and trust me, this guy is an insider, then I guess you're not interested in this topic altogether."
Actually, I AM interested in this topic, and that's why I read a summary of Clarke's book some time ago. Reading the summary did not awaken a strong desire in me to read the whole book.
At this moment, I don't see strong reasons to trust you more than for instance Jabba the Truth, wo wrote above that "Clarke is considered a crank today".
The problem is also that alleged undisputable facts are sometimes disputed nevertheless, and not necessarily only by obstinate or stupid people. In any case, calling facts undisputable, without even citing the facts, is not very convincing.

Seen the images showing helpless german soldiers in kosovo not able to cope with - compared to Iraq - minor luting and ethnic riots, a couple of month ago in Kosovo?
Or in Afghanistan: German soldiers even did not dare to leave their camp for to protect people, while taliban lead riots took place in a small village just close to them.
And dont get me wrong: the individual german soldier is neither a coward nor an idiot; the embarrassing image is first of all due to a lack of experience, to an insufficient number of soldiers put in a hostile environement like lambs, and the abuse of military for inconsistent, more domestic political purposes; Mr Struck keeps on telling that the security of germany has to be defended at the hindukusch - god bless germany and our soldiers!

From an editorial review of Clarke's "Against All Enemies" in Publishers Weekly:
"An important aspect of Clarke’s book is that it is only one man’s account—and an account moreover that casts its author as hero and others (FBI, CIA, the military) as screw-ups; as has been seen in recent congressional hearings, administration officials (notably, Condoleezza Rice) have challenged its veracity. But those inclined to believe Clarke will find that he makes a devastating case about the Bush administration’s failure from the beginning (when Clarke’s position was downgraded and he was taken off the top-level Principals Committee) to make terrorism as high a priority as Clinton’s did."
I'm not among those inclined to believe Clarke. Why should I?

"Let me get this straight. The UN was monitoring these explosives and told the coalition where they were. The US military did NOTHING to secure this (instead they secured the ministry of oil building) and now these explosives are being used to blow up US troops. Oh, and if everyone knew about this and didn't report it, why is the Bush Campaign saying today they only learned about the missing stockpile 10 DAYS AGO! The incompetence is mind-boggling."

You know, Mike Moore, one big drawback of being a shill for Democrat propaganda is that you end up believing it yourself. Here are a few more developments in the latest "October surprise" story that might interest German readers. I got a slick e-mail from Democratic Party campaign headquarters (I'm a registered Democrat) within hours of the time the story broke which, in part, as follows:

"This morning, The New York Times published a story that offers further proof of how the Bush administration's incompetence and arrogance has endangered the lives of our troops and the American people.

"Even before invading Iraq, the Bush administration knew that a huge facility called Al Qaqaa contained nearly 380 tons of deadly explosives. Despite the fact that they knew exactly where this facility was and what was there, they took no action to secure or protect the site. Due to the stunning incompetence of the Bush administration and their incomprehensible failure to plan, these explosives have disappeared.

"Let me put this in perspective -- the bomb that took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland used less than one pound of this same explosive. There were 760,000 pounds at Al Qaqaa."

Can you say "coordination?" Now, my dear German readers, go to the website of the New York Times, ABC, USA Today, CBS, or whatever, and read the "news" about the missing 380 tons. You will find that every one of the Democrat talking points from the above e-mail also feature prominently in the "news" story.

The lame mainsteam media claim that they "just found out about this" is about as believable as the similar claim they made about their "October surprise" for the 2000 election, the "revelation" that Bush was arrested for drunk driving as a young man. The dead giveaway this time is the fact that the Democrats are determined to have their cake and eat it too. They want to make the claim that the Bush Administration was ignorant of the missing 380 tons and is, therefore, guilty of "incompetence," but can't restrain themselves from also claiming that Bremer (yesterday) and now the whole Pentagon (today) knew all about it 18 months ago, and Bush is therefore guilty of a "cover up." On top of these two mutually exclusive claims, we are also supposed to believe that the bureaucrats in the Pentagon, famous for their loose tongues, managed to hide this deep, dark secret from the super sleuth reporters working for our mainstream media for the whole 18 months, and they only found out about it (SURPRISE) now, just in time for the election!

It now appears, by the way, and has been confirmed by one of the embedded journalists who was actually at the site 18 months ago, that the explosives were moved before US troops ever got there. What a joke! Add to that the eager and uncritical parroting of such alarmist Democrat propaganda in the mainstream media as the claim that the explosives are "uniquely" suited for setting off atomic bombs, a claim they could have debunked immediately by asking any undergraduate physics student above the moron level, and all you can do is shake your head. So there you have it, my dear German readers, the US mainstream media, "im Steckschritt" with the Bush Administration.

German readers may wonder how intelligent Americans can vote for Bush. It's understandable that you would ask that, especially if your only source of information is the German mass media. I can only speak for myself, but I agree with much of the reasoned criticism of Bush. He is right wing, panders to religious fanatics who want to break down the barrier between church and state, and has run up huge budget deficits. It will grieve me if he is elected President. I will, however, vote for him, because seeing Kerry elected would grieve me even more. One of the reasons I loathe Kerry is the tactics his supporters are using to get him elected, as cited, for example, above. Another reason is that he engaged in a treasonous private correspondence with the enemies of this country while we were at war in Vietnam. Another reason is that he made lying accusations that I and my fellow officers and enlisted men in Vietnam were all committing atrocities "worthy of Genghis Khan," at a time, in 1971-72, when I could drive the entire distance on Vietnam's Highway 1 from Xuan Loc, where I was stationed, through Saigon, to Vung Tau on the South China Sea, without noticing any sign of fear or alarm from any of the thousands of Vietnamese I passed on the way, and when children regularly ran up to play with me when I and my friends visited the market. Hardly what you'd expect if they thought I was Genghis Khan. Kerry has never apologized for any of this, and instead has tried to smear the Swiftboat Vets and others who have tried to point out these facts to the American people. As a fellow veteran, I know exactly how they feel and where they are coming from. When you add to that the fact that Kerry is a transparent opportunist who has spent his entire career reaching for high office, but has never shown any interest in using the powers of the high positions he has reached to actually do anything to benefit his fellow citizens, then, perhaps, you can begin to grasp why I cannot vote for such a man, and can even prefer someone like Bush to him.

Who REALLY gives a flying szhit whether the US has Pissed off" it's "eu" allies? These you speak of who are pissed are allies no more.
Are they pissed because they are now forced to come out from under the fantasy welfare blanket they have put ovber the eyes of the "eu"?
Are the pissed off that this necessary war against jihadist freaks truly show the impotence of both france and germany?
Are they pissed off that the 9.11 attacks were planned on "eu" soil and has exposed the world to how muslims live in the "eu"?
Are they pissed of because kosovo is still such a damn mess, and german troops hide in barracks when churches are burned and christians are killed?
Are they pissed because germans troops are afraid to go outside of Kabul, even in small numbers?
Are they pissed that the US found hussein in a rat hole just 200 days after the invasion, yet the "eu" cannot find the two most wanted Serb generals from a war that happend 9 damn years ago? Does this all shape the mind-sets in "eu" which exposes the complete impotence of the "eu"
Nice work you in the "eu" have done with regards to Iran over the last year. Thats great progress from the french and german diplomatic core, yeah right! and BS.
One statement above talks about not being impressed with the US special forces. Thats because you do not see them little man. Each night hundreds of scumbag jihadists are beaten dead into the ground within Iraq. You don't think Sadr gave in becasue he wants to vote do you? He caved in because he watched the fools who follow him get mowed down and stomped with every engagement with US troops. Al Zarqawi is next. You in the "eu" should be happy we are reducing your welfare rolls when the "asylum seekers" who came to the "eu" to suplant themselves and relive you of your welfare money are killed when they come to visit US troops in Iraq. The "eu" in it's present day is a damn disgrace without an equal. Any sense of a relationship between germany and the US is now quite dead, and thankfully so. Your country's actions over the last 3 years has shown the US the tru colors of the german people. No one in the US belives the bullszit "that the US squandered post 9.11 sympathy" within europe. There was none to begin with. Your on your own now, and you best be able to soften the landing as your "union" falls to it's knees even further.

When the US folds the flag for the last time and bids farewell to the fatherland... just remember it is all just one big joke. We will of course be there when you need us, just like you have been there for us when we needed you.